Shomari Staten's lawsuit against Carrollton

Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

SHOMARI STATEN
PLAINTIFF,

§
§

V.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO . 3:10-CV-00342

THE CITY OF CARROLLTON TEXAS, §
AND OFFICER DAVID TATOM,
§
DEFFENDANTS .

§

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT :
COMES NOW, SHOMARI STATEN, "Plaintiff', complaining of the City of Carrollton, Texas,
and police officer David Tatom, "Defendants", and in support thereof would respectfully show
the Court the following :
A. Parties
1.

Plaintiff, Shomari Staten, is an individual who resides in Carrollton, Dallas County,

Texas .

2.

Defendant, the City of Carrollton, Texas, (the "City") operates the Carrollton Police

Department (the "Department") and is legally responsible for the actions of its officers, is a
municipal corporation who may be served by delivering a copy the Summons and of the
Complaint to the Carrolllton City Manager, Leonard Martin, at City Hall,

2nd

Floor, 1945 E .

Jackson Rd ., Carrollton, Texas 75006 .

3.

Defendant David Tatom ("Defendant Tatom") is a police officer with the Department and

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 1




Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 2 of 10

may be served at 2025 E . Jackson Rd ., Carrollton, Texas 75006 .

B. Jurisdiction and Venue

4.

This Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the suit arises under several federal

statutes including 42 U .S.C. Section 1983 and seeks redress for violations of rights guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States and therefore presents a federal question . The actions of
the Defendants occurred within the City of Carrollton, Dallas County, Texas and were done
under the color of state law and said Defendants were acting within their official capacities .

C. Demand for Jury

5.

Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues triable to a jury .

D. Facts

6.

Plaintiff is an African American male and at all relevant times was a resident of

Carrollton, Dallas County,

7.

At all material times Plaintiff was in the business of buying and selling cars .

8.

On the afternoon of February 21, 2009 Plaintiff and a business associate, Demetrius

Carter, who was also African American, were legally parked in a shopping center parking lot in
Carrollton, Texas . They were sitting in a legally registered blue 1997 Geo Prizm .

9.

The purpose for Plaintiff being in that particular parking lot was that he was delivering

the car to a buyer of the vehicle . That buyer, a Caucasian woman, was inside her bank at that
location to obtain a cashier's check to pay Plaintiff for the vehicle .

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 2



Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

10 .

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 3 of 10

While sitting in the car waiting for the purchaser, Plaintiff saw a Carrollton police car

pull behind the Geo Prizm . The squad car had its emergency lights on .

11 .

Mr. Carter was sitting in the front driver's side seat and Plaintiff was in the front

passenger seat . An African American officer got out of the squad car and approached the driver's
side window . The officer, whom Plaintiff recognized from the officer's off duty security work at
a local auto auction, began questioning Mr . Carter and Plaintiff about allegedly stealing license
plates. Plaintiff explained that he was selling the vehicle and that he had to change out the license
plate as required by law.

12.

Plaintiff got out of the car to show identification of himself and that his company was the

owner of the vehicle . When Plaintiff stepped out he noticed that a second officer was standing at
the rear end of the Geo Prizm . That officer, a Caucasian male later identified as Defendant
Tatom, ordered Plaintiff to take his hand out of his pockets . Before he could produce
identification, Plaintiff put his hands in the air and identified himself and declared to Defendant
Tatom that he was a concealed handgun license holder.

13 .

Immediately, Defendant Tatom forcefully turned Plaintiff around, reached into Plaintiffs

pants, grabbed Plaintiffs lawfully held handgun, and violently slammed Plaintiff to the ground .
Defendant Tatom continued to use excessive force while Plaintiff was on the ground .

14 .

The unjustified excessive force caused Plaintiff to suffer physical and other injuries .

Defendant Tatom slammed Plaintiff to the ground and continued to slam Plaintiff while on the
ground. Defendant Tatom also forcefully placed his knee on Plaintiffs back and viciously and
repeatedly jerked and twisted Plaintiffs arm despite the fact that Plaintiff put up no resistance .
When Plaintiff repeated that he held a concealed handgun license, Defendant Tatom exclaimed

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 3



Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 4 of 10

"not for long" .

15 .

Plaintiff suffered serious injuries to his shoulder, hand, wrists, knees and other parts of

his body . Additionally Plaintiff suffered damage to his personal property .

16 . Immediately after the assault by Defendant Tatom, additional officers from the Carrollton
Police Department arrived . Plaintiff, handcuffed and injured, was placed in a squad car for a
lengthy period of time and was denied medical treatment . The officers deliberated how to handle
the situation that they knew was awry . Plaintiff was who he said he was, lawfully possessed the
handgun and owned the vehicle . No citation of any type was given to Plaintiff . Ultimately they
freed Plaintiff and Mr . Carter and returned to Plaintiff his gun and ammunition . Plaintiff made
clear to Defendant Tatom that he intended to file a complaint with the Carrollton Police
Department. This unjustified and outrageous situation turned out to be just the beginning of an
oppressive, intentional, conspiratorial and invidious deprivation of Plaintiffs civil rights and
liberties and constitutional protections .

17.

On the following Monday, February 23, 2009, Plaintiff went to the Carrollton Police

Department and filed a written complaint against Defendant Tatom . Plaintiff also filed an Open
Records Request to obtain a copy of the police video that recorded the incident . Approximately
three weeks later on March 19, 2009, Plaintiff again appeared at the Carrollton Police
Department to follow up on the status of his Open Records Request . When he identified himself
to the department employee, the employee walked toward the rear of the office and notified
Carrollton City Attorney Woody Specht of Plaintiffs presence . Shortly thereafter, several police
officers approached Plaintiff, notified him that there were warrants for his arrest for Resisting
Arrest and for Failure to Display a Concealed Handgun License . Plaintiff was then handcuffed

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 4



Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 5 of 10

and arrested. Both bogus charges related to the original incident over three weeks prior .

18 .

While Plaintiff was in handcuffs, an unknown officer roughly grabbed Plaintiffs car keys

from Plaintiffs hands and demanded gruffly as to what car he was driving . When Plaintiff failed
to comply and requested to speak to a lawyer, Specht shouted at Plaintiff saying they were going
to find the car and impound it. In the Police Departments and City's ever increasing mode of
intimidation, Plaintiff was powerfully shoved in the back by another officer on more than one
occasion as he was leading Plaintiff . The officer intentionally tried to provoke, humiliate and/or
intimidate Plaintiff by pushing him in the back and demanding that Plaintiff speed up and then
when Plaintiff sped up as instructed, the officer then walked in front of Plaintiff and slammed his
arm into Plaintiffs chest and demanded that Plaintiff "slow down" .
19 .

The Defendants' intimidation and retaliation continued . Despite Plaintiffs verbal request

to talk to a lawyer, and while handcuffed , he was led into an interrogation room . In the
interrogation room was Officer Kosec and another officer . Officer Kosec asked Plaintiff whether
he was sure that he still wanted to pursue a complaint against Defendant Tatom . Despite
declining to answer and requesting that he be allowed to talk to an attorney, Kosec continued to
try to question and intimidate Plaintiff.

20 .

Plaintiff was next led into the processing unit . While there, an unknown officer began to

take multiple photographs of Plaintiff. When Plaintiff objected and asked whether he was
required to submit to such photos being taken, the officer ignored the question and continued to
take photographs . It was later learned that the photographs were admittedly taken because the
Department believed that Plaintiff was going to sue the Department and the Department wanted
to memorialize Plaintiffs physical condition .

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 5



Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

21 .

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 6 of 10

While in custody, Plaintiff was denied needed medical treatment on two occasions . Upon

Plaintiffs release he discovered that Specht was indeed truthful in his statement that they would
find Plaintiffs vehicle and impound it . Not only was the vehicle impounded but it stayed
impounded indefinitely . Despite repeated requests for information about obtaining the vehicle's
release Plaintiff was continually rebuffed . When the vehicle was finally released on March 27,
2009 it sustained damage while impounded .

22.

As if the above described abuse, intimidation, discrimination, retaliation and harassment

was not enough, the Department was not through unlawfully mistreating Plaintiff. After the
bogus charges against Plaintiff were dismissed by the Dallas County District Attorney's Office,
the Department has continued such despicable intimidation tactics by having officers drive
around Plaintiffs home to let Plaintiff know that he is still on their minds . This intimidation is
continuing to this day .

23 .

Plaintiff did not receive the videos requested in the Open Records Request until he

retained attorneys to file a state court Petition to force the Department to comply .

24.

At all material times the Defendants were acting in the course and scope of their

employment with the City of Carrollton and/or the Carrollton Police Department .

25 .

The exercise of this established custom and/or policy violated Plaintiffs clearly

established rights under the U .S . Constitution against the use of unreasonable, unnecessary and
excessive force .

26.

At the time of Plaintiffs arrest, Defendants were acting under the color of the laws and

regulations of the State of Texas and the city of Carrollton Police Department . The Police

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 6



Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 7 of 10

Department had a policy and/or custom in place that enabled its agents and employees to act with
indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals . Such policies and/or customs included
tolerating misconduct by police officers and encouraging misconduct by failing to adequately
supervise, discipline or train such officers . Such policies and/or customs include the use of
excessive force, false arrests and fictitious charges, retaliation against citizens who complain of
improper police conduct, racial profiling, discrimination based on race and abuse of proper
police and prosecutorial standards . These policies and/or customs give rise to some of the causes
of action set forth below .
E . Conditions Precedent

27.

All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred .
F. Count 1 . Violation of Constitutional Rights

28 . Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations previously set forth in this Complaint . The
exercise of the aforementioned policies and/or customs violated Plaintiffs clearly established
rights under the United States Constitution against the use of unreasonable, unnecessary, and
excessive force pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution . The
exercise of such policies and/or procedures also violated such protected rights of Plaintiff against
unreasonable seizure of his person . Plaintiff was first unlawfully detained, handcuffed and
assaulted . He was then freed and was returned his gun and ammunition . He next exercised his
lawful right to complain about Defendant Tatom's conduct and to request the videos pursuant to
an Open Records request . He then was arrested three weeks later and falsely charged in
retaliation for his prior complaint and deprived of his liberty and property . In custody he was
again assaulted and intimidated . After the bogus charges were dropped by the Dallas County's

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 7



Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 8 of 10

District Attorney's office, Plaintiff continued and to this day continues to be harassed and
threatened by Defendants .

G. Count 2 . 42 U .S.C. Section 1983

29.

Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations previously set forth . The Defendants acted

willfully, deliberately, maliciously, or with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs clearly established
constitutional rights as described above . Such actions by Defendants violate 42 U .S .C . Section
1983 .
30.

As set forth above, Defendant Tatom acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously, or with

reckless disregard for Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights in violation of this
Statute .

H. Count 3-Malicious Prosecution

31 .

Plaintiff incorporates the preceding factual allegations contained in this Complaint .

32. The Defendants conduct constitutes malicious prosecution . Defendants caused a
prosecution to be commenced against Plaintiff which was ultimately determined in Plaintiff's
favor. Plaintiff was innocent of the bogus and belated charges that were maliciously brought to
justify Defendant Tatom's unlawful conduct and to intimidate Plaintiff from pursuing action
against Defendants . Defendants had no probable cause to initiate a prosecution as evidenced by,
among other things, that the charges (resisting arrest and failing to display handgun license) were
patently absurd as Plaintiff was not only not arrested at the scene, but rather, he was let go and
was returned his gun and ammunition . Plaintiff suffered injury and damages resulting from the
Defendants' wanton and malicious actions .

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 8




Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 9 of 10

I. Count 4-Assault and Battery Against Defendant Tatom

33 .

Plaintiff incorporates the preceding factual allegation contained in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint .
34 .

Defendant Tatom's violent actions against Plaintiff's person constitutes assault and

battery . Defendant Tatom acted intentionally, knowingly and/or recklessly . Plaintiff suffered
injury as a proximate result from the assault .
J . Damages
35 .

As a result of the Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has incurred and hereby sues for the

following categories of damages :

a.

Medical expenses in the past and future .

b.

Mental anguish in the past and future .

c.

Disfigurement in the past and future .

d.

Physical impairment in the past and future .

e.

Lost earnings .

f.

Loss of earning capacity .

g.

Physical pain and suffering .

i.

Property damage .
K.Attorney Fees

36.

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U .S .C . §1988(b) .
L. Punitive Damages

37.

Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages .

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 9


Case 3:10-cv-00342-P

Document 1

Filed 02/19/2010

Page 10 of 10

M. Prayer

38 .

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that upon final trial of this cause he be

awarded :
a.

Actual damages .

b.

Reasonable attorney fees .

c.

Prejudgment and post judgment interest .

d.

Costs of suit.

e.

Punitive damages

e.

All other relief the court deems appropriate .
Respectfully submitted,
ANDREW A . BERGMAN, P .C .

Andrew A . Bergman
State Bar No . 02196300
4514 Travis Street, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75205
Telephone (214) 528-2444
Facsimile (214) 599-0602
GRAY LAW
Jay K . Gray
State Bar No . 08324050
4514 Travis Street, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75205
Telephone (214) 528-2444
Facsimile (214) 599-0602
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PAGE 1 0